Repub ad: "If you don't get health coverage, Dems will send you to jail"

[JohnWxy]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/a_wave_of_negative_ads_and_fal.html

If you don't get health coverage, Dems will send you to jail

~~
~~

Check out this spot slamming Dem Rep Chris Murphy of Connecticut -- who's being challenged in a tough district by Republican Sam Caligiuri -- with the claim that health reform means "jail time for anyone without coverage."

The spot, which was sent in by an operative involved in the race, is the handiwork of American Action Network, another shadowy conservative group that has already spent $5 million this cycle:



The ad claims health reform means "$500 billion in Medicare cuts." But Politifact found that "the law does not take $500 billion out of the current Medicare budget."

The ad claims health reform means "thousands of new IRS agents." But Factcheck.org pronounced that assertion "wildly misleading."

(more)

[Bill USA]

1. I thought broadcasters had some responsibility for the accuracy of the ads they broadcast?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Responsibility for the "accuracy" of the ads they broadcast?

:spray: :rofl:

Sorry, but that's just so..........cute. It would be nice but it's NOT how it works, at least not anymore, unfortunately.

[golddigger]

5. WTH...they don't even have responsibility

for the accuracy of the news they report.

[texastoast]

6. That would have been before Raygun's

deregulated FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

Growing up, we had lots of editorial opinions aired on all stations. One night it would be one viewpoint. The next night, someone would present the counter viewpoint. And politicians' ads were factual. Then politicians talked up their good points and didn't slam other candidates.

But, the country was a little more rational. We are devolving from a social standpoint. Republicans, the party of the cave people.

[grilled onions]

2. What About Auto Insurance?

Many cannot afford or choose not to carry it so those who get smacked by those who don't have end up paying for both their own and the uninsured. Why is it so many of the "Teasers" rebel on the subject of welfare but think it's ok if they refuse to pay for insurance knowing that those who do have any coverage at all end up paying a portion for those who don't?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. I don't know about anybody else

but if were trying to scare somebody about going to jail because of the new HCR law, wouldn't we be more worried about the government hiring "thousands of new FBI (or BATF) AGENTS".
:shrug: